Frost:...Would you say that there are certain situations - and the Huston Plan was one of them - where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation, and do something illegal?

Nixon: Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.

Frost: By definition.

Nixon: Exactly, exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.

Frost: The point is: the dividing line is the president's judgment?

Nixon: Yes, and, so that one does not get the impression that a president can run amok in this country and get away with it, we have to have in mind that a president has to come up before the electorate. We also have to have in mind that a president has to get appropriations from the Congress. We have to have in mind, for example, that as far as the CIA's covert operations are concerned, as far as the FBI's covert operations are concerned, through the years, they have been disclosed on a very, very limited basis to trusted members of Congress.[1]

All he's really doing is reiterating one of the basic arguments that most Presidents have made throughout history: that there are times where the government takes action in the interests of national security or public safety and that imperative can, at times, override certain legal protections. It's not about absolute power as much as it's about the government having to balance the sometimes-juxtaposing concepts of the rule of law and public safety.

from https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Nixon-say-When-the-President-does-it-that-means-that-it-is-not-illegal




In my nearly fifty years I have observed, and quite a bit lately, that the supporters of certain people in 'authority' often allow them much more leash and much more benefit of the doubt in crossing certain lines than they do other people

and likewise

I have observed that the critics of certain people in 'authority' often allow them much less leash and much less benefit of the doubt in crossing certain lines than they do other people


its as if, a politicians supporters, have the idea that if their politician did it it can't be wrong/illegal but if someone elses does it must be


this seems to cause much of the political divide and stagnation in the political process, how do we correct this tendency and teach objective thought in politics or can we ever teach people how to view politics through a logical or objective lens?

Very hard to do right now msharmony...
so much has been showed to the people ...
about politics ... and just the regular public ...

with this health care bill they are trying to not own
kinda like the Irk war ...GOP never owned that ... but people know why we went in ... and are still in ...



these Wars are what is breaking America...
they choose to put more $ into war ...rather then take care of the people in the United States making them loose their health care ... from the elderly to the children ... to those that want too make their own choices with trying to defund plan parenthood ...
an other programs ...They believe will save them $ enough to be in all these wars ... as the wealthy gain ...and saying will lower health care premiums... while others know... they will raise them by making those with preconditions pay more such as just having diabetes ... + let alone how many will die ...with out this care ... not sure how this story will end but right now not looking good ... for those with any kind of illness their fighting ...

and never really liked John McCain policy's but was really sorry to hear of his brain tumor ...

honesty... the more I learn about politics ..the more it disgust me ... is it the people or the polices or both ...

I think that the correct answer to this is, that Nixon, and anyone who thinks the same way, was and is dead wrong.

The things you speak of, where a leader of a constitutional (as opposed to absolute) government takes actions which everyone ends up approving, but which seem to be outside of the laws, are most often not outside the law at all.

The solution to the SEEMING conundrum, is better education for everyone, ESPECIALLY the leaders, and the watchers of the leaders.

The recent example where Trump "did a Nixon," and claimed that it was entirely okay for HIM to blurt out classified information to foreign agents in public, because a President is by definition incapable of breaking the secrecy regulations, is total bunk. While it is true, that different levels of leadership have differing limits on what they can and can't do, they all DO have limits. And further, the process for holding them to their limits is very different. A lower level officer can be fired, and even prosecuted for sloppy handling of classified information, while an upper level officer may not, but it isn't because the upper officer has special privileges of wealth or power, It's because there are different standards and procedures involved, which determine what does and doesn't happen as a result.

The President does have some responsibilities, and associated special circumstance powers which allow him or her the needed flexibility to do what is necessary to protect and defend the nation. But those powers are ALWAYS LIMITED AND LEGISLATED. Nixon (as was Trump) was wrong when he said that being the President makes it legal. That's false. And it was also false, that Nixon thought that the only limit on the President, was the voting booth (the electorate, as he put it). Although it has yet to have happened, Presidents CAN be charged, tried, and found guilty of all sorts of crimes while in office. So far, the main thing which has prevented that, has been other political considerations, such as not allowing interests outside of the US, to dictate US policy and legal process.

I do not believe any thing Trumps says ... even before saying he would not touch health care +SS ... medicare... medicaid a no. of other things he said he would not do ... but is doing it now ... so the republican that voting for him are now changing their tune ... he has failed to give up some of what he owns ...here and other country's... he is involved with ... before elected ... he's a pawn in his own kingdom ...

I do not wish him ill ... but being America... I certainly do not have to like him ... This is not a communist country ... we have a constitution ...

I have seen repeatedly that anyone who is fanatic about any ideology, is almost immune to truth, education or objective thought. Its just the nauture of fanaticism whether you apply it to politics, religion or other aspects of life

I have to agree with you on that. But, I think a lot of it comes from the internet and some of the alleged "news" shows. I am talking about the ones where it is mostly debate and opinion. and, on the internet, there are so many of what I call the 1% science sites, where they find a bit of fact and create a whole story around it. It can be hard to sort out the real truth at times.

I have come to a point of, if it isn't on my doorstep, I am not going to fret it to much.

Have a great day everyone.